Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Participatory problem analysis of crop activities in rural Tanzania with attention to gender and wealth: ‘setting the scene’ to enhance relevance and avoid exclusion in pro-poor innovation projects

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Food Security Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many Agricultural Research for Development (AR4D) projects continue to treat smallholder farmers as a homogenous social group and ignore the de-facto exclusion of certain subgroups that are hard to reach due to a variety of social, economic or cultural factors. This study took place as a first step in an AR4D project (Trans-SEC) that focussed on innovation testing with smallholder farmers in Central Tanzania. A participatory problem analysis aimed to develop understanding by researchers of the farmers’ crop production system and the local context. A participatory approach was employed to identify the main problems from the perspectives of farmers, giving attention to socio-economic and gender-related differences. Extracting from a larger participatory situation analysis, this paper describes the approach, methods and results of the problem analysis and also incorporates results from a household survey of the key problems faced by different smallholder farmers across four case study sites in the Morogoro and Dodoma regions of Tanzania. Results from the participatory sessions contextualised the quantitative results derived from the concurrent household survey. The paper highlights the critical problematic circumstances of low-income households, which are suffering most from inter-connected problems across their crop activity system. Results point to the problem of a lack of labour and time available to women, especially those heading households or of lower economic status. We argue from these results that intersecting, socially differentiated problem situations are an important consideration in defining relevant points of entry for AR4D projects and for shaping subsequent stages of research design to foster more inclusive, pro-poor processes. We conclude by outlining the benefits and challenges of conducting a participatory situation analysis as a first step in an AR4D project.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The term “activity system” is used to emphasise that agriculture is a socio-ecological process, involving different human activities that establish and shape the farming system (Spedding 1988; Kaufmann 2011).

  2. Because of the general predominance of crop farming, more data were generated on this topic.

  3. Villages were selected beforehand by project partners according to the following criteria. Main selection criteria for regions: two climate types: (semi-arid Dodoma (350–500 mm), semi-humid Morogoro Region (600–800 mm); weak and good market access; rainfed crop–livestock systems, not too strongly paddy rice oriented (< 20% rice); village size: approx. 800–1500 households (Graef et al. 2013).

  4. The household survey team was led by Anja Faße, working in the framework of the AR4D project, Trans-SEC. For more detail see Faße et al. (2014).

  5. Including resource mapping, seasonal calendars, problem trees, livelihood mapping and net mapping. For a full overview of all methods and fieldwork activities that formed part of the participatory situation analysis, see Höhne (2015).

  6. Feedback seminars, lasting around 2.5 h each, were essential to report back to participants, to clarify open questions and to check the reliability of findings together with the informants.

  7. A decision was taken to focus research efforts on the more remote villages of Ilakala and Ilolo. Therefore, fewer sessions were carried out in the other two CSSs. The predominance of men in the particular session in Ilolo was due to the focus on vegetable production, which is a male-dominated, income-generating activity. In Idifu and Changarawe, equal numbers of male and female farmers were invited but, in the event, some people did not attend.

  8. The effect and extent of integration of smallholders into traditional agricultural value chains in the four CSSs is discussed in more detail by Kissoly et al. (2017).

  9. Paraphrased from: Livelihood Session 1, women, Ilakala (15.03.2014); Livelihood Session 2, women Ilakala (17.02.2014) and Changarawe 02.04.2014) and Idifu (06.02.2014); Problem tree crop session, women, Ilakala (21.03.2014); Problem tree crop session, men, Ilolo (18.02.2014) and Changarawe (04.04.2014)

  10. Group marketing for sesame is already taking place in Ilolo but that did not yet incorporate other crops, apparently because of complex organisational issues within the group (Höhne 2015).

  11. This strategy was not attempted, as it was decided that supporting existing, active groups would be a more appropriate goal and would avoid confusion and over-burdening of farmers within the Trans-SEC project, which was already creating new groups in the same CSSs.

  12. As the authors were not responsible for carrying out the household survey, the field experience cannot be reflected upon in this paper in the same way as in done for the problem tree and seasonal calendar sessions.

References

  • Andersson, J. A., & D'Souza, S. (2014). From adoption claims to understanding farmers and contexts: A literature review of conservation agriculture (CA) adoption among smallholder farmers in southern Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 187, 116–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berdegué, J. A. (2005). Pro-poor innovation systems. IFAD, Rome, Italy: Background Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, M. (1989). Giving women credit: The strengths and limitations of credit as a tool for alleviating poverty. World Development, 17(7), 1017–1032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, T., & Gabre-Madhin, E. (2007). Smallholders’ commercialization through cooperatives. In IFPRI Discussion Paper, 00722. Washington DC: USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brüssow, K., Faße, A., & Grote, U. (2017). Implications of climate-smart strategy adoption by farm households for food security in Tanzania. Food Security, 9(6), 1203–1218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-017-0694-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryceson, D. F., & Mbilinyi, M. (1980). The changing role of Tanzanian women in production. Jipemoyo, 2, 85–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, R., & Jiggins, J. (1987). Agricultural research for resource-poor farmers part I: Transfer-of-technology and farming systems research. Agricultural Administration and Extension, 27(1), 35–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, R., Saxena, N. C., & Shah, T. (1989a). To the hands of the poor: Water and trees. London, UK: IT Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, R., Pacey, A., & Thrupp, L. A. (1989b). Farmer first: Farmer innovation and agricultural research. In R. Chambers, A. Pacey, & L. A. Thrupp (Eds.), London. UK: IT Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collinson, M. P. (1981). A low-cost approach to understanding small farmers. Agricultural Administration and Extension, 8(6), 433–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collinson, M. P. (1982). Farming systems research in eastern Africa: The experiences of CIMMYT and some National Agricultural Research Services, 1976-82. In MSU international development paper # 3. East Lansing, MI, USA: Michigan State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conroy, C. (2001). Participatory situation analysis with livestock keepers: A guide. Chatham Maritime, UK: NRI/Pune: BAIF Development Research Foundation.

  • Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (2001). Participation: The new tyranny? London, UK: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornwall, A., & Fleming, S. (1995). Context and complexity: Anthropological reflections of PRA. PLA Notes, 8–12.

  • Dinesh, D., Campbell, B. M., Bonilla-Findji, O., & Richards, M. (2017). 10 best bet innovations for adaptation in agriculture: A supplement to the UNFCCC NAP technical guidelines.

  • Douthwaite, B. & Ashby, J. (2005). Innovation histories: a method for learning from experience. Institutional learning and change (ILAC) Brief 5. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/52515/2/ILAC_Brief05_Histories.pdf. Accessed 01.03.2017.

  • Elias, M., Jalonen, R., Fernandez, M., & Grosse, A. (2017). Gender-responsive participatory research for social learning and sustainable forest management. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, 26(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksen, S. H., Brown, K., & Kelly, P. M. (2005). The dynamics of vulnerability: Locating coping strategies in Kenya and Tanzania. The Geographical Journal, 171(4), 287–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrington, J., & Martin, A. M. (1988). Farmer participatory research: A review of concepts and recent fieldwork. Agricultural Administration and Extension, 29(4), 247–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faße, A., Kissoly, L., Brüssow, K. & Grote, U. (2014). Household Survey Wave 1: Baseline. Trans-SEC Deliverable 3.2.1. Institute for Environmental Economics and World Trade (IUW) Leibniz University of Hannover (LUH), Germany. Unpublished project document.

  • Fernandez, R. (2016). Social capital and community based organization’s functionality in innovation processes: perspectives from three case studies in Tanzania. Master thesis in development economics: Georg-august University of Göttingen / University of Kassel, Germany.

  • Foley, J. A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K. A., Cassidy, E. S., Gerber, J. S., Johnston, M., & Zaks, D. P. (2011). Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature, 478(7369), 337–342.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Godfray, H. C. J., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J. F., Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Thomas, S. M., & Toulmin, C. (2010). Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science, 327(5967), 812–818.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez, M. I., Barrett, C. B., Buck, L. E., et al. (2011). Research principles for developing country food value chains. Science, 332(6034), 1154–1155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graef, F. et al. (2013). Innovating Strategies to safeguard Food Security using Technology and Knowledge Transfer: A people-centred Approach. Trans-sec proposal, Unpublished project report.

  • Graef, F., Uckert, G., Schindler, J., König, H. J., Mbwana, H. A., Fasse, A., Mwinuka, L., Mahoo, H., Kaburire, L. N., Saidia, P., Yustas, Y. M., Silayo, V., Makoko, B., Kissoly, L., Lambert, C., Kimaro, A., Sieber, S., Hoffmann, H., Kahimba, F. C., & Mutabazi, K. D. (2017). Expert-based ex-ante assessments of potential social, ecological, and economic impacts of upgrading strategies for improving food security in rural Tanzania using the ScalA-FS approach. Food Security, 9(6), 1255–1270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-016-0639-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayward, C., Simpson, L., & Wood, L. (2004). Still left out in the cold: Problematising participatory research and development. Sociologia Ruralis, 44(1), 95–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hocdé, H., Vasquez, J. I., Holt, E., & Braun, A. R. (2000). Towards a social movement of farmer innovation: campesino a campesino. ILEIA Newsletter, July 2000, 26–27. http://lib.icimod.org/record/10426/files/3805.pdf. Accessed 18.01.2016.

  • Hoffmann, V., Probst, K., & Christinck, A. (2007). Farmers and researchers: How can collaborative advantages be created in participatory research and technology development? Agriculture and Human Values, 24(3), 355–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Höhne, M. (2015). A participatory situation analysis of Tanzanian smallholder farming systems: Identifying points of entry for innovation from the farmer's perspective. In MSc thesis, in sustainable international agriculture; Georg-august-university of Göttingen. Germany: University of Kassel.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (n.d.) Situation analysis – an approach and method for analyzing the context of projects and programmes. http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/approach_and_method.pdf, Accessed 18.11.2015.

  • Kaufmann, B. A. (2011). Second-order cybernetics as a tool to understand why pastoralists do what they do. Agricultural Systems, 104, 655–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann, B., Arpke, H. & Christinck, A. (2013). From assessing knowledge to joint learning. In A. Christinck and M. Padmanabhan (eds): Cultivate diversity! A handbook on transdisciplinary approaches to agrobiodiversity research (pp. 114–141). Weikersheim, Germany: Margraf Publishers, Scientific Books.

  • Kissoly, L., Faße, A., & Grote, U. (2017). The integration of smallholders in agricultural value chain activities and food security: Evidence from rural Tanzania. Food Security, 9(6), 1219–1235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-016-0642-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knoema. (2006). Dodoma – Life expectancy at birth. http://knoema.de/atlas/Vereinigte-Republik-Tansania/Dodoma/Life-Expectancy-at-Birth. Accessed 18.11.2015.

  • Krummacher, A. (2004). Der Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)-Ansatz aus ethnologischer Sicht. Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Department of Anthropology and African Studies, Mainz, Germany. Working Paper No. 36.

  • Kummer, S., Ninio, R., Leitgeb, F., & Vogl, C.R. (2008). How do farmers research and learn? The example of organic farmers’ experiments and innovations: A research concept. 16th IFOAM Organic World Congress, Modena, Italy, June 16–20, 2008, Archived at http://orgprints.org/view/projects/conference.html. Accessed 19.02.2016.

  • Lund, J. F., & Saito-Jensen, M. (2013). Revisiting the issue of elite capture of participatory initiatives. World Development, 46, 104–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mbilinyi, M. (1994). Restructuring gender and Agriculture in Tanzania. In U. Himmelstrand, K. Kinyanjui and E. Mburugu (eds.): African perspectives on development: Controversies, dilemmas and openings (pp.166–182.). London, UK: James Currey Publisher.

  • McCauley, A. P., West, S., & Lynch, M. (1992). Household decisions among the Gogo people of Tanzania: Determining the roles of men, women and the community in implementing a trachoma prevention program. Social Science and Medicine, 34(7), 817–824.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mieves, E. (2016). Farmers’ views on innovation outcomes: Multiple tools for participatory impact assessment with smallholder farmer groups in Tanzania. In MSc thesis in sustainable international agriculture: Georg-august university of Göttingen. Germany: University of Kassel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mnimbo, T. S., Lyimo-Macha, J., Urassa, J. K., Mahoo, H. F., Tumbo, S. D., & Graef, F. (2017). Influence of gender on roles, choices of crop types and value chain upgrading strategies in semi-arid and sub-humid Tanzania. Food Security, 9(6), 1173–1187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-017-0682-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molua, E. L. (2011). Farm income, gender differentials and climate risk in Cameroon: Typology of male and female adaptation options across agroecologies. Sustainability Science, 6(1), 21–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moser, C. M., & Barrett, C. B. (2003). The disappointing adoption dynamics of a yield-increasing, low external-input technology: The case of SRI in Madagascar. Agricultural Systems, 76(3), 1085–1100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mwinuka, L., Mutabazi, K. D., Graef, F., Sieber, S., Makindara, J., Kimaro, A., & Uckert, G. (2017). Simulated willingness of farmers to adopt fertilizer micro-dosing and rainwater harvesting technologies in semi-arid and sub-humid farming systems in Tanzania. Food Security, 9(6), 1237–1253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-017-0691-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nightingale, A. (2002). Participating or just sitting in? The dynamics of gender and caste in community forestry. Journal of Forest and Livelihood, 2(1), 17–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nightingale, A. (2003). A feminist in the forest: Situated knowledges and mixing methods in natural resource management. ACME: an International E-journal for Critical Geographies, 2(1), 77–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D., & Collinson, M. (1985). Farming systems research in theory and practice. In Agricultural systems research for developing countries. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research proceedings 11, pp. 16–30.

  • Ogle, B. R. (2001). The need for socio-economic and environmental indicators to monitor degraded ecosystem rehabilitation: A case study from Tanzania. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 87, 151–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pannell, D. J. (1997). Sensitivity analysis of normative economic models: Theoretical framework and practical strategies. Agricultural Economics, 16(2), 139–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pannell, D. J. (1999). Social and economic challenges in the development of complex farming systems. Agroforestry Systems, 45(1–3), 395–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pound, B., van Dijk, M., Waarts, Y. R., & Apenteng, E. (2011). Making ARD more pro-poor; improving accessibility and relevance of results to the poorest. Natural resources institute, University of Greenwich, UK/LEI–part of Wageningen UR, The Netherlands.

  • Pretty, J. N., Morison, J. I. L., & Hine, R. E. (2003). Reducing food poverty by increasing agricultural sustainability in developing countries. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 95(1), 217–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rajabu, K. R. (2005). The role of participatory problem analysis in performance improvement and sustainable management of rainwater harvesting (RWH) systems: A case study of Makanya village, Tanzania. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 30(11), 832–839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reij, C., & Waters-Bayer, A. (Eds.). (2001). Farmer innovation in Africa: A source of inspiration for agricultural development. London, UK: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Restrepo, M. J., Lelea, M. A., Christinck, A., Hülsebusch, C., & Kaufmann, B. A. (2014). Collaborative learning for fostering change in complex social-ecological systems: A transdisciplinary perspective on food and farming systems. Knowledge Management for Development Journal, 10(3), 38–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhoades, R., & Bebbington, A. (1995). Farmers who experiment: An untapped resource for agricultural research and development. In L. J. Slikkerveer, D. M. Warren, & D. Brokensha (Eds.), The cultural dimension of development (pp. 296–307). London, UK: IT Publications.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Riisgaard, L., Bolwig, S., Ponte, S., Du Toit, A., Halberg, N., & Matose, F. (2010). Integrating poverty and environmental concerns into value-chain analysis: A strategic framework and practical guide. Development Policy Review, 28(2), 195–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schindler, J., Graef, F., König, H. J., & Mchau, D. (2017). Developing community-based food security criteria in rural Tanzania. Food Security, 9(6), 1285–1298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-016-0627-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schönhuth, M. (1998). Mit den Augen des Ethnographen: Ethnologinnen und ihre Begegnung mit partizipativen Planungsmethoden – Drei Erfahrungsberichte. https://www.uni-trier.de/fileadmin/fb4/ETH/Aufsaetze/Mit_den_Augen_Ethno.pdf. Accessed 21.01.2016.

  • Schulz, K. (2016). Participatory Scenario Building to assess possible implications of gender and socio-cultural factors for innovation uptake decisions in Tanzanian farming communities. Master thesis in development economics: Georg-august-University of Göttingen / University of Kassel, Germany.

  • Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: how certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New haven, USA. London, UK: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrestha, R. P., & Ligonja, P. J. (2015). Social perception of soil conservation benefits in Kondoa eroded area of Tanzania. International Soil and Water Conservation Research, 3(3), 183–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sieber, S., Graef, F., Amjath-Babu, T. S., Mutabazi, K. D., Tumbo, S. D., Faße, A., Paloma, S. G. Y., Rybak, C., Lana, M., Ndah, T. H., & Uckert, G. (2017). Introduction to a special issue: Regional food and nutritional security in Tanzania–methods, tools and applications. Food Security, 9(6), 1143–1145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-017-0744-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spedding, C. R. W. (1988). An introduction to agricultural systems. London, UK and New York, USA: Elsevier Applied Science.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sumberg, J., & Okali, C. (1997). Farmers' experiments: Creating local knowledge. Boulder, CO, USA: Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Swift, J. (1981). Rapid appraisal and cost-effective participatory research in dry pastoral areas of West Africa. Agricultural Administration, 8, 485–92, 492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tenge, A. J., De Graaff, J., & Hella, J. P. (2004). Social and economic factors for adoption of soil and water conservation in west Usambara highlands, Tanzania. Land Degradation and Development, 15(2), 99–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thapa, P. (2016). Facilitation and assessment of Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation systems for innovation processes with Tanzanian smallholder farmer groups. MSc thesis, sustainable international agriculture: Georg-august University of Göttingen / University of Kassel, Germany.

  • Thapa, P., Ngwenya, P., & Kaufmann, B. (2017). Participatory monitoring and evaluation: A tool for making farmer groups function better. Appropriate Technology, 44(4), 40–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • The World Bank (2015). World development indicators. Washington, D.C., USA. http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators. Accessed 21.01.2016.

  • Ton, G., Klerkx, L., de Grip, K., & Rau, M. L. (2015). Innovation grants to smallholder farmers: Revisiting the key assumptions in the impact pathways. Food Policy, 51, 9−23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Twyman, C. (2000). Participatory conservation? Community-based natural resource management in Botswana. The Geographical Journal, 166(4), 323−335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • URT (2012a). National Sample Census of Agriculture 2007/2008. Volume Va: Regional Report: Dodoma Region, Tanzania. http://www.instepp.umn.edu/sites/default/files/product/downloadable/Tanzania_2007-8_Vol_5a.pdf. Accessed 18.01.2016.

  • URT (2012b). National Sample Census of Agriculture 2007/08. Volume Ve: Regional Report: Morogoro Region. Tanzania. http://harvestchoice.org/publications/tanzania-national-sample-census-agriculture-20072008-regional-report-morogoro-region-vo Accessed 18.01.2016.

  • Van de Fliert, E., & Braun, A. R. (2002). Conceptualizing integrative, farmer participatory research for sustainable agriculture: From opportunities to impact. Agriculture and Human Values, 19(1), 25–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Veldhuizen, L., Waters-Bayer, A., & de Zeeuw, H. (1997). Developing technology with farmers: A trainer's guide for participatory learning. London, UK: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Veldhuizen, L., Waters-Bayer, A., Wettasinha, C. & Hiemstra, W. (eds) (2012). Farmer-led documentation: Learning from Prolinnova experiences. Silang, Cavite, Philippines: International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR) / Leusden: Prolinnova international secretariat, ETC AgriCulture.

  • Wagura Ndiritu, S., Kassie, M., & Shiferaw, B. (2014). Are there systematic gender differences in the adoption of sustainable agricultural intensification practices? Evidence from Kenya. Food Policy, 49, 117–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waters-Bayer, A., van Veldhuizen, L., Wettasinha, C., & Wongtschowski, M. (2004). Developing partnerships to promote local innovation. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 10(3), 143–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waters-Bayer, A., van Veldhuizen, L., Wongtschowski, M., & Killough, S. (2005). Innovation support funds for farmer-led research and development. IK. Notes, 85, 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziervogel, G., & Ericksen, P. (2010). Adapting to climate change to sustain food security. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(4), 525–540.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research took place in the frame of the GlobE project “Trans-SEC: Innovating pro-poor strategies to safeguard food security using technology and knowledge transfer: a people-centred approach” financed by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development. Authors would like to express thanks to all participants in the CSSs, translators (Shani, Nengi, Devotha and Davis), and local facilitators (particularly the support provided by the Agricultural Research Institutes of Tanzania and the National Network of Small-Scale Farmers’ Groups in Tanzania (MVIWATA). Special thanks also to Anja Faße and her team for providing access to the household survey data. We also thank Raul Fernandez for work on survey data preparation and to Markus Frank for formatting assistance. Authors gratefully acknowledge the detailed input of two anonymous reviewers.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. German Institute for Tropical and Subtropical Agriculture (DITSL GmbH), Steinstraße 19, 37213, Witzenhausen, Germany

    Pamela Richardson-Ngwenya, Maria Höhne & Brigitte Kaufmann

Authors
  1. Pamela Richardson-Ngwenya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria Höhne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Brigitte Kaufmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pamela Richardson-Ngwenya.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Richardson-Ngwenya, P., Höhne, M. & Kaufmann, B. Participatory problem analysis of crop activities in rural Tanzania with attention to gender and wealth: ‘setting the scene’ to enhance relevance and avoid exclusion in pro-poor innovation projects. Food Sec. 10, 859–880 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-018-0791-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-018-0791-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation